Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
XBoxBoy
ParticipantFor the most part I disagree with the items you’ve listed.
Items may last longer but we just buy more of them or new items that weren’t available in the past. Think cellphones. Twenty years ago almost no one had one. You phone bill was not much at all. Now you have a family of four paying $200 a month for phones. Also in the past tv came over the air for free. Now, $100 a month is probably the average.
People spend significantly more at restaurants and eating out now than they did in the past. Eating out and/or eating already prepared food cost more and is much more common now.
Reuse centers like Goodwill are not new. These places have been around for years.
Renewable energy is still not cheap. You still have to pay for the solar system. I would seriously question if spending on energy is dropping for reasons other than declining oil prices.
Certainly here in CA prop 13 combined with longer lifespans has lead to house hording so I won’t argue with that, but I doubt food stamps or most govt benefits have impacted house prices.
I don’t know if cheaper transportation will cause prices to go up or down. An argument could be made that as Uber and Lyft roll out autonomously driving vehicles we could see a lot of job loss due to automation. That in turn could cause housing to drop precipitously. Not convinced that will happen but worth considering.
Participant[quote=harvey][quote=XBoxBoy]Because of the winner take all way the votes are counted.[/quote]
Once again, who’s vote is counted?
This “I don’t vote because the outcome is already determined by voters” logic is pretty nonsensical and even childish.
[/quote]
Harvey, not really sure what you’re trying to establish here. I’m merely laying out the facts of the system. I too vote regularly. Haven’t missed a ballot in years. But the way the system is run, is the way the system is run and you calling someone trying to explain the system to you nonsensical and childish doesn’t improve your credibility.
What’s more, in your rant you’re implying that all the candidates and the people who run their campaigns are nonsensical and childish. Take note that neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton will bother to campaign in California. There will be no rallies in San Diego where either of them will bother to attend. The same will be true for LA and San Francisco. Why is that? Because they understand the system, and they understand that California is not in play.
Go back and read what I wrote again, I’m pretty clear that the votes that matter are the votes cast in the swing states.
If you want to argue technicalities: Technically all the votes cast are counted. But once the votes are counted the wishes of the minority are discarded and all of the electoral votes for the entire state of California will go to the candidate who won the most votes. So technically, all the votes are counted, but only some of the votes count. (Those that voted for the candidate that carried the state, the people who vote for the other candidate have their vote turned into a vote for the candidate who carried the state.)
Pointing this out and understanding how the system works is neither childish or nonsensical. (Although arguably the system is nonsensical)
[quote=harvey]I don’t generally get wrapped in patriotism but many people have made incredible sacrifices so that we can vote. The one thing we can do to honor them is to actually exercise that right once a year.[/quote]
I agree, but I would also add another thing we could do to honor those people is to change the system so that everyone’s vote actually mattered equally.
Participant[quote=harvey]Why do people say their vote doesn’t make a difference in CA?[/quote]
Because of the winner take all way the votes are counted. Keep in mind that in our system, the candidate who wins the state is awarded all the votes from that state. Thus, if you vote for candidate A, but candidate B carries California your vote goes to candidate B even though you checked candidate A on your ballot. (It’s a crazy system huh?)
In California and any other state that is heavily one party or the other the state is pretty much predecided to go for that party. Yes, technically there is always the possibility that voters could decide to not vote for their party’s nominee and vote for the other party’s nominee, but the reality is that never happens. People overwhelmingly vote for the nominee of the party they are registered to. There are very few swing voters, and they tend to cancel each other out.
[quote=harvey]If your vote doesn’t make a difference, then who’s vote does?[/quote]
The votes of people who live in states where the electorate is closely split. Their votes really do matter. In 2012 Obama won Florida by only 1%, a pretty small win. Here’s a list of the states that were close in 2012:1. Florida: 0.6 percent (Obama 49.9, Romney 49.3.)
2. Ohio: 1.9 percent (Obama 50.1, Romney 48.2)
3. North Carolina: 2.2 percent (Romney 50.6, Obama 48.4)
4. Virginia (99% reporting): 3.0 percent (Obama 50.8, Romney 47.8)
5. Colorado: 4.7 percent (Obama 51.2, Romney 46.5)
6. Pennsylvania (99% reporting): 5.2 percent (Obama 52, Romney 46.8)
7. Iowa: 5.6 percent (Obama 52.1, Romney 46.5)
8. New Hampshire (99% reporting): 5.8 percent (Obama 52.2, Romney 46.4)
9. Nevada (99% reporting): 6.6 percent (Obama 52.3, Romney 45.7)
10. Wisconsin: 6.7 percent (Obama 52.8, Romney 46.1)
To follow the states that will be important this election I recommend the site fivethirtyeight.com. They are listing Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Virginia as the most likely states to determine who wins.
August 13, 2016 at 12:20 PM in reply to: Trump businesses – Would you support his businesses? #800582Participant[quote=Rich Toscano] It looks like Liberace huffed gold paint and threw up all over Tsar Nicholas II’s summer home.[/quote]
This line deserves recognition as the best writing ever on Piggington.
ParticipantIn regards to the question of available land, the report linked by the OP states, “In fact, there is now more available land than ever, as at least 48,000 acres of agricultural land has been downgraded as “inferior” over the past 20 years.”
ParticipantTraveling is highly overrated. You have to schlep a bunch of stuff, sit for extended time in a large tin can, and deal with surly airport staff. Alternatively, you can have a wonderful day in San Diego, enjoy the comforts of your own home and end the day in your own bed. Why do I want to go somewhere else and sleep in a bed where who know who has done who knows what?
ParticipantI would mostly recommend picking a neighborhood that is a short commute. Traffic on the freeways has only gotten worse and isn’t likely to get better. Schools in Carmel Valley are part of the Del Mar Unified School district (at least through elementary) and are very good. Some prices are over $1 million but some places can be had for less.
ParticipantWorth noting, a VOSD article states that Collins is the second-highest paid K-12 public school educator in the state. For me, this incident drives home the fact that just because you pay your Big Boss (whether CEO or School Superintendent) big bucks doesn’t mean you get someone who will do a good job. Every time I hear someone say that CEO’s (or whatever title) needs to be paid that amount so that we can get someone capable, I can’t help but think that person doesn’t have a clue how the world really works.
ParticipantWhat are you saying here? Zillow shows the house as not for sale, so are you saying the zillow estimate is too high?
Not sure why a for sale sign on a property proves there is a bubble.
Participant[quote=moneymaker]xboxboy would it not be in both sides best interest to not let the contracts lapse in order to avoid a strike?[/quote]
A strike doesn’t occur just because the contract expires. Typically everything continues as if the contract is still in place. (There can be exceptions though.). In most cases it’s understood that the strike is truly the last resort, so it won’t happen until well after the contract is expired and all attempts to negotiate have proved unsuccessful.
ParticipantUnion/Company negotiations are often long and drawn out with both sides trying to prove they aren’t afraid to walk away from the table so things drag on and on. But in reality neither side wants a strike. Strikes cost workers lost wages and many union workers live paycheck to paycheck so a strike can really hurt the workers. Likewise strikes cause companies bad publicity and can disrupt the business in lots of ways meaning lost profits.
So the goal of both sides is to appear like you are negotiating in earnest, that you are doing your very best, while not giving in on anything that matters. That often means keep working under the old contract while the negotiations are still going on.
Participant[quote=profhoff]I’m just trying to make sense of the market. Prices don’t seem tied to fundamentals.[/quote]
This is the thing that amazes me too. In the lower end, (less than a million) I get it. There is a shortage of inventory and so prices are going up. Totally understandable. But as you pass a million and start working your way up the price ladder, there is not really a shortage of inventory.
The best explanation I can come up with is that there are a lot more people willing and able to buy multi-million dollar homes than there used to be. I suppose we could blame wealthy Chinese, or others from out of town, but I don’t find that a very compelling argument.
A couple weeks ago I went and looked at a 3.4mil “fixer” in LJ. Admittedly a great location but a house in need of a teardown remodel on a 7000 sq ft lot. The place is pending, so I guess 3.4m for a teardown is the going price? It’s crazy, but at the same time I don’t see a price drop in our future. So that’s got me baffled.
XboxBoy
ParticipantProfhoff asks how high can prices go? That is the question! Just like expensive areas of NCCSD prices in La Jolla have risen insanely fast in the last year. In La Jolla we are well above peak bubble pricing at this point, and if you believe Zillow many houses are close to double peak pricing.
You can claim this is due to low inventory, but in the $1,500,000 and up price range there is actually a good bit of inventory. (look at inventory in 92067 Rancho Santa Fe!)
You can also make the claim that these prices are justified due to high rents and low interest rates, but most buyers of two million dollar properties are not even thinking of renting and they are most likely paying cash.
You can also argue that we aren’t building enough low cost housing, which is probably true, but we are building a good bit of high end housing. So while that seems like a good argument for why low end prices are rising it is much less convincing for high end.
I’d hate to make predictions of a bubble, because a bubble implies a price drop in the near future and given the data Rich has been posting that seems unlikely. But in expensive areas, we’ve had steady price increases of around 10% a year for 5-6 years, while neither the economy nor inflation has kept pace anywhere close to that.
Which brings us back to the OP’s question, how high can prices go? I have no idea what the answer to that is, nor do I have any predictions of how this plays out, but it does seem to me price increases in high end areas can not continue at their current pace forever.
Just my 2 cents worth,
XboxboyParticipant[quote=HLS]
While this seems eerily similar to old-fashioned subprime loans, Burkey says it’s not.Burkey plans to originate the loans directly and hold them in his firm Burkey Capital’s investment funds. [/quote]
All this will hinge on the quality of borrowers Burkey gets. If he does plan to hold the loans, then chances are good he’ll really try to get good borrowers. If that’s true, then I don’t see it at all like old-fashioned subprime loans.
-
AuthorPosts
